INDICARB LTD vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU — W.P.(C) No. 409/1997
Case under Section X. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010128671997
Filing Date
04-Aug-1997
Registration No
W.P.(C) No. 409/1997
Diary Number
12867/1997
Order Date
26-Apr-2004
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.INDICARB LTD
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Adv. A. T. M. SAMPATH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) G. PRAKASH HEMANTIKA WAHI REVATHY RAGHAVAN ASHA GOPALAN NAIR RANJAN MUKHERJEE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Apr-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Oct-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2003
ROPView PDF
-
19-Aug-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Aug-2003
ROPView PDF
-
08-Aug-2003
ROPView PDF
-
01-May-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Mar-2003
ROPView PDF
-
14-Feb-2003
ROPView PDF
-
28-Jan-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Nov-2002
ROPView PDF
-
23-Oct-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Sep-2002
ROPView PDF
-
06-Sep-2002
ROPView PDF
-
16-Aug-2002
ROPView PDF
-
12-Aug-2002
ROPView PDF
-
05-Aug-2002
ROPView PDF
-
29-Jul-2002
ROPView PDF
-
15-Jul-2002
ROPView PDF
-
10-Jul-2002
ROPView PDF
-
17-Jun-2002
ROPView PDF
-
09-May-2002
ROPView PDF
-
29-Apr-2002
ROPView PDF
-
12-Apr-2002
ROPView PDF
-
09-Apr-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Mar-2002
ROPView PDF
-
06-Mar-2002
ROPView PDF
-
20-Feb-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Jan-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Jan-2002
ROPView PDF
-
08-Jan-2002
ROPView PDF
-
24-Jul-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jul-2001
ROPView PDF
-
25-Jan-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jan-2001
ROPView PDF
-
04-Aug-1997
Case filed
Registration No. W.P.(C) No. 409/1997
On 26/04/2004, the Supreme Court heard interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 4-6) in Civil Appeals Nos. 936-938 of 2001 filed by Indicarb Limited against the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court ordered that the appeals had already been disposed of and no further orders were required on the interlocutory applications, accordingly dismissing I.A. Nos. 4-6. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts